Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy embarrasses himself with Indiana RFRA tantrum

posted at 1:21 pm on March 30, 2015 by Noah Rothman

The frenzied outpouring of disproportionate outrage from the left over Indiana’s state-level version of the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act can be best described as a tantrum.

A number of firms including Apple and Angie’s List Inc. have announced that they will respond to the legislation that critics insist is designed to discriminate against gays and lesbians by reviewing their commitments to do business in the state. A cornucopia of liberal groups are organizing a boycott of all things Hoosier. And, on Monday, Connecticut Governor Dannel Malloy revealed that he will prohibit all state-sponsored travel to this heretical member of the Union. He joins the mayor of Seattle, who also blocked city-funded travel to Indiana in protest over this perfectly banal law.

This reaction is nothing short of an embarrassment for the left and a repudiation of the values that the Democratic Party espoused as recently as the 1990s, when President Bill Clinton signed a national version of this act into law.

The hypocrisy exhibited by the left in this display of childish pique over Indiana’s RFRA bill is impossible to ignore.

“[W]hile Indiana is being criticized, the NCAA didn’t say it was concerned over how athletes and employees would be affected by Kentucky’s RFRA when games were played there last week, there aren’t any plans to boycott states like Illinois or Connecticut, and Miley Cyrus has yet to post a photo of President Clinton or any of the 19 other governors who have also signed RFRAs,” The Washington Post’s Hunter Schwarz wrote. “Indiana might be treated as if it’s the only state with a bill like this, but it’s not.”

“This law, like other RFRAs, merely requires that state laws meet a demanding, but hardly insurmountable, test before infringing upon the religious practice or conscience of religious believers,” observed The Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blogger Jonathan Adler. “If the law imposes a substantial burden on religious belief, the law must yield unless the law serves a compelling state interest and is the least burdensome way to advance that interest.”

Malloy’s absurd response to the Indiana law is, no doubt, an effort to distract his liberal constituents from the fact that Connecticut’s RFRA law – yes, they have one, too – goes farther than the act signed last week by Gov. Mike Pence.

The Federalist’s Sean Davis makes the case:

Connecticut’s law, however, is far more restrictive of government action and far more protective of religious freedoms. How? Because the Connecticut RFRA law states that government shall not “burden a person’s exercise of religion[.]” Note that the word “substantially” is not included in Connecticut’s law.

The effect of the absence of that single word is enormous. It states that Connecticut government may not burden the free exercise of religion in any way. That makes it far more protective of religious liberty than the Indiana law that has so outraged Connecticut’s governor.

If Connecticut Gov. Dan Malloy wants to blatantly discriminate against state’s with religious liberty laws on the books, that’s his prerogative. But if he doesn’t want to look like a completely ignorant hypocrite who has no idea what he’s talking about, he should probably take a look at his own state’s laws first.

That seems straightforward enough. Still have questions? Over at The Federalist, attorney Gabriel Malor answers all of your pressing inquiries. The most substantive assertion that he makes, however, is that all RFRA’s do not and cannot license discrimination.

“RFRA is a shield, not a sword,” Malor noted. “It can be used to defend oneself against lawsuits or administrative action. It can’t be used affirmatively to try and deprive others of the protections of law.”

The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway remarked that the 1993 Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, authored by congressional Democrats and signed into law by a Democratic president, has actually helped a number of religious minorities receive justice after being subjected to discrimination.

Those who oppose the Indiana RFRA on its merits contend that this law differs from nearly all other state-level religious freedom laws in that it allows corporate entities the same “free exercise” rights afforded to individuals and churches. “A lot of legal thinkers thought that idea was outlandish until last year’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, in which the Court’s five conservatives interpreted the federal RFRA to give some corporate employers a religious veto over their employees’ statutory right to contraceptive coverage,” wrote Garrett Epps in The Atlantic.

He spent an inordinate amount of time in that piece attempting to make the case that Indiana’s law codifies the logic espoused by Jim Crow-era segregationists who sought religious justifications for racial discrimination. But Epps conceded in the above that the federal version of the RFRA now also protects corporate “free exercise” rights.

Malor expanded on this point:

Indiana’s RFRA applies the same standard as in the other RFRAs that is described above: substantial burden versus compelling interest and least restrictive means. Indiana’s RFRA is a defense not just for individuals, but also companies and corporations. This is similar to the federal RFRA after Hobby Lobby, which also applies to individuals, companies, and closely-held corporations. But not all state RFRAs include companies and corporations. So that’s different in some states.

Indiana’s RFRA also protects individuals both in lawsuits or administrative actions brought by the government and in lawsuits brought by private parties. Some states, like New Mexico, do not allow RFRA to be used as a defense in litigation where the government isn’t a party. Also, the federal circuit courts are split about whether the federal RFRA can be used to defend against private lawsuits where the government isn’t a party. So that’s also different in some states and in some federal circuits.

Otherwise, it’s the same law.

Like so many of the left’s fits of self-righteousness, this episode merely exposes the plethora of double standards to which liberals so frequently appeal. No Democratic politician can be expected to advance within the party without expressing opposition to the law Bill Clinton signed, including the former president’s wife:

For the left, their ongoing overreaction to Indiana’s RFRA is a humiliation. But it is one that is driven by a collective irrationality that the Democratic Party has come to cherish.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

reread the article. The guy requested something they don’t make for anyone. That’s perfectly legal.

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 8:49 PM

Christian bakeries sometimes don’t make gay cakes for anyone. So what’s the beef?

Star Bird on March 30, 2015 at 8:59 PM

You call it religious freedom, I call it freedom to deny service based on sexual orientation. We are talking about the same thing, you just have a different word for it.

No, we’re not talking about the same thing, which is why there are different words for it. You’re welcome.

Alien on March 30, 2015 at 9:01 PM

Protected class? Some of do think some people are better than others…that should disgust you-but you’re full of shite.

CW on March 30, 2015 at 9:04 PM

You call it religious freedom, I call it freedom to deny service based on sexual orientation. We are talking about the same thing, you just have a different word for it.

Chicago Way on March 30, 2015 at 8:58 PM

Yeah yeah, we call it capitalism and economic freedom – You call it abuse of the proletariat by the bourgeois.

The law establishes legal protections for religious actions -in effect making the religious a protected class. Why is that so wrong?

Skywise on March 30, 2015 at 9:04 PM

You call it religious freedom, I call it freedom to deny service based on sexual orientation. We are talking about the same thing, you just have a different word for it.

Chicago Way on March 30, 2015 at 8:58 PM

Why do you demand to give bigoted business owners your money and keep them in business?

Star Bird on March 30, 2015 at 9:05 PM

Actually it’s me mocking Bmore, but I didn’t expect you to get it so don’t feel too bad.

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 8:55 PM

Too much-your low self-esteem is glaring.

CW on March 30, 2015 at 9:06 PM

It’s amusing how, the Southern Democrats supported slavery, oh but that was the old Democrats. The Southern Democrats supported Jim Crow, oh but those were the old Democrats. The Democrats did not vote in favor of the Civil Rights Act, oh but those weren’t today’s Democrats. A Republican President freed the slaves, oh but those were the old Republicans. And on and on.

Star Bird on March 30, 2015 at 8:57 PM

Uh…yeah. That’s what happens when your party turns its back on Lincoln and embraces the KKK because they could get more votes that way. It’s all thoroughly documented. What’s more it handily explains the south going from solid democrat to solid republican and blacks (as well as other minorities) turning to the dems.

Your side chose to be racists. Actively chose it. I’m not inclined to let you shirk the responsibility for that either.

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 9:11 PM

Christian bakeries sometimes don’t make gay cakes for anyone. So what’s the beef?

Star Bird on March 30, 2015 at 8:59 PM

Wow, that’s awesome how you pretend there’s such a thing as “gay cakes.” It almost made me forget you’re full of sh*t.

Which is a pretty good trick.

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 9:12 PM

Let us know when your fight for liberty gets around to helping gays…

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 8:29 PM

Name a liberty denied to gays by this law.

While you’re at it, maybe you can get around to that evidence of US Congresspersons emailing Obama as a witch doctor, or making references to shooting him.

You call it religious freedom, I call it freedom to deny service based on sexual orientation. We are talking about the same thing, you just have a different word for it.

Chicago Way on March 30, 2015 at 8:58 PM

People can and do deny service every day for reasons much more arbitrary than that, without consequence. This particular arbitrary reason just happens to be something for which you can feel good about yourself by forcing other people to do things your way.

The Schaef on March 30, 2015 at 9:14 PM

Tialoc you’re so gullible.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html

You love your myths.

The two scholars support their claim with an extensive survey of election returns and voter surveys. To give just one example: in the 50s, among Southerners in the low-income tercile, 43 percent voted for Republican Presidential candidates, while in the high-income tercile, 53 percent voted Republican; by the 80s, those figures were 51 percent and 77 percent, respectively. Wealthy Southerners shifted rightward in droves but poorer ones didn’t.

To be sure, Shafer says, many whites in the South aggressively opposed liberal Democrats on race issues. “But when folks went to the polling booths,” he says, “they didn’t shoot off their own toes. They voted by their economic preferences, not racial preferences.” Shafer says these results should give liberals hope. “If Southern politics is about class and not race,” he says, “then they can get it back.”

CW on March 30, 2015 at 9:15 PM

Mar 30, 2015 at 8:54 pm Chicago Way

Would you mind sharing those ordinances in Indiana?

Barnestormer on March 30, 2015 at 9:16 PM

That’s what happens when your party turns its back on Lincoln and embraces the KKK because they could get more votes that way. It’s all thoroughly documented. What’s more it handily explains the south going from solid democrat to solid republican and blacks (as well as other minorities) turning to the dems.

Your side chose to be racists. Actively chose it. I’m not inclined to let you shirk the responsibility for that either.

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 9:11 PM

That is patently and demonstrably false. Only one politician switched parties after the Civil Rights Act passed, and he was trying to pander to the middle, not embrace some sudden inrush of Republicans who magically became racist overnight as well.

Blacks turned to the Dems for the exact reason that Johnson said they would. And he used a word that you would excoriate me for even implying, much less using in conversation.

So… witch doctor evidence?

The Schaef on March 30, 2015 at 9:16 PM

So now nudism is a protected class?

Have you ever thought about learning the basics of the argument os you actually have a clue?

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 8:47 PM

This is the quotes.

People should be able to hire/fire (or refuse service to) whomever they wish, for whatever reason they wish.

bluegill on March 30, 2015 at 8:40 PM

You lost this fight 50 years ago. But by all means keep fighting it…

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 8:43 PM

The implication is that any reason to refuse service is a fight that’s lost.

Your words.

itsspideyman on March 30, 2015 at 9:17 PM

Tialoc-you’re a liar-sadly you know it.

CW on March 30, 2015 at 9:18 PM

This fight for gay wedding cakes is a fight for liberty for gays. Gays need gay wedding cakes and demand that YOU bake them one so they have liberty and YOU don’t.

SpongePuppy on March 30, 2015 at 9:18 PM

That’s what happens when your party turns its back on Lincoln and embraces the KKK because they could get more votes that way. It’s all thoroughly documented. What’s more it handily explains the south going from solid democrat to solid republican and blacks (as well as other minorities) turning to the dems.

Your side chose to be racists. Actively chose it. I’m not inclined to let you shirk the responsibility for that either.

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 9:11 PM

Give clear evidence of racism, with links and quotes, or shut up.

itsspideyman on March 30, 2015 at 9:18 PM

CW on March 30, 2015 at 9:15 PM

you could watch the video of Atwater explaining the southern strategy in his own words…

http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy

But I suspect you won’t. Too much chance of learning something

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 9:19 PM

The media coverage of the 1968 presidential race also showed that Nixon was in favor of the Civil Rights and would not compromise on that issue. For example, in an article published in theWashington Post on September 15, 1968 headlined “Nixon Sped Integration, Wallace says” Wallace declared that Nixon agreed with Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren and played a role in ”the destruction of public school system.” Wallace pledged to restore the school system, in the same article, by giving it back to the states ”lock, stock, and barrel.”

This story, as well as Nixon’s memoirs and other news stories during that campaign, shows that Nixon was very clear about his position on civil rights. And if Nixon was used code words only racists could hear, evidently George Wallace couldn’t hear it.

Among the southern states, George Wallace won Arkansas , Mississippi , Alabama , Georgia and Louisiana . Nixon won North Carolina , South Carolina , Florida , Virginia , and Tennessee . Winning those states were part of Nixon’s plan.

– See more at: http://blackquillandink.com/?p=6082#sthash.PlKta792.dpuf

CW on March 30, 2015 at 9:19 PM

I wanted a wedding cake with a giant cow pie on top. The bigoted Baker refused. I have rights.

SpongePuppy on March 30, 2015 at 9:20 PM

Tialoc probably gets paid to slander-it has no self respect.

CW on March 30, 2015 at 9:20 PM

That’s what happens when your party turns its back on Lincoln and embraces the KKK because they could get more votes that way. It’s all thoroughly documented. What’s more it handily explains the south going from solid democrat to solid republican and blacks (as well as other minorities) turning to the dems.

Your side chose to be racists. Actively chose it. I’m not inclined to let you shirk the responsibility for that either.

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 9:11 PM

Give clear evidence of racism, with links and quotes, or shut up.

itsspideyman on March 30, 2015 at 9:18 PM

And no links from some B.S. site. No wikipedia. Make it factual.

itsspideyman on March 30, 2015 at 9:21 PM

It’s time to make culinary arts degrees to require coursework in gay wedding cakes or lose accreditation.

Gay car seats are another example of where gays get their liberty stolen. No one will make them a gay car seat

SpongePuppy on March 30, 2015 at 9:25 PM

Your side chose to be racists. Actively chose it. I’m not inclined to let you shirk the responsibility for that either.

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 9:11 PM

And you wonder why no one here takes you seriously, let alone want to interact with you? Why would we give a fat rat’s ass what you think, knowing that your viewpoints are extremely the opposite of most posters here?

Alien on March 30, 2015 at 9:25 PM

“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

— Lyndon B. Johnson

—-
Own it Tialoc.

CW on March 30, 2015 at 9:26 PM

Uh…yeah. That’s what happens when your party turns its back on Lincoln and embraces the KKK because they could get more votes that way. It’s all thoroughly documented. What’s more it handily explains the south going from solid democrat to solid republican and blacks (as well as other minorities) turning to the dems.

Your side chose to be racists. Actively chose it. I’m not inclined to let you shirk the responsibility for that either.

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 9:11 PM

Republicans remained in the same place: in favor of equality under the law. Democrats simply changed their strategy for imposing socialism from giving special legal privileges to whites, to giving special legal privileges to blacks (and then as many other “other” groups as they could). Now they are giving special legal privilege to hedonists in general and gays in particular. Same old pattern since the mid 1800’s.

Count to 10 on March 30, 2015 at 9:27 PM

“There are white n*ggers. I’ve seen a lot of white n*ggers in my time.” — Former Klansman and Current US Senator Robert Byrd,

Classy.

CW on March 30, 2015 at 9:27 PM

That’s what happens when your party turns its back on Lincoln and embraces the KKK because they could get more votes that way.

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 9:11 PM

Yet it’s the GOP which elected the first black man to Congress, and it’s the demorats which elected a former KKK leader to a 50 year term.

I know you’re trying but this effort of yours is embarrassing. You should be embarrassed. Embarrassing.

Bishop on March 30, 2015 at 9:28 PM

Uh…yeah. That’s what happens when your party turns its back on Lincoln and embraces the KKK because they could get more votes that way. It’s all thoroughly documented. What’s more it handily explains the south going from solid democrat to solid republican and blacks (as well as other minorities) turning to the dems.

Your side chose to be racists. Actively chose it. I’m not inclined to let you shirk the responsibility for that either.

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 9:11 PM

No, actually that’s what happens when Democrats try to explain why their party has been on the wrong side of history ever since Alexander Hamilton (the bloke you idiots now want removed from the 20 dollar bill, because racism) founded it. Remember, the KKK was founded as the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.

It’s thoroughly enjoyable watching you uneducated drones squirm when confronted by the facts of reality. Can you describe for us detail how it makes you feel, so we have more material to mock you with?

Star Bird on March 30, 2015 at 9:28 PM

Hmmmmmm…….

Apple CEO Tim Cook likes to discriminate.

TheMadHessian on March 30, 2015 at 9:28 PM

Tialoc making such general statements sounds like the simplistic babbling of a racist.

CW on March 30, 2015 at 9:29 PM

“First clean and articulate African American.”

Uttered by that infamous GOP’er Jumpin’ Joe Biden.

Bishop on March 30, 2015 at 9:29 PM

Wow, that’s awesome how you pretend there’s such a thing as “gay cakes.” It almost made me forget you’re full of sh*t.

Which is a pretty good trick.

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 9:12 PM

Are you devolving into semantics again little one?

Star Bird on March 30, 2015 at 9:30 PM

Uh…yeah. That’s what happens when your party turns its back on Lincoln and embraces the KKK because they could get more votes that way. It’s all thoroughly documented.

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 9:11 PM

Says the knows-all-about-political-history who says this:

I really wasn’t paying attention to politics before 2000.

Tlaloc on March 23, 2015 at 7:54 PM

And there’s:

I’m not inclined to let you shirk the responsibility for that either.

LOL. Silly old school marm.

de rigueur on March 30, 2015 at 9:42 PM

Chicago Way, I really would appreciate knowing which Indiana jurisdictions have those sexual orientation ordinances you mentioned up thread. It’s getting late and I’d like to add that information to my file before calling it a night. Thanks in advance.

Barnestormer on March 30, 2015 at 9:44 PM

Tlaloc is here to promote the Cultural Marxist viewpoint.

lineholder on March 30, 2015 at 9:46 PM

Echo….

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 8:38 PM

Bmore on March 30, 2015 at 9:49 PM

Incorrect. Pre RFRA, several local ordinance explicitly called out gay people as a protected class. The current law overruled those protections. Hard to say what will happen. Don’t know the future, but discrimination just got a heck of a lot easier.

Chicago Way on March 30, 2015 at 8:54 PM

That right there sums up perfectly the liberal reaction to all of this. “I have no idea what this law is going to do and nothing to back me up, but MY GOD this law is horrible.”

Oh vey, the idiocy.

dorkintheroad on March 30, 2015 at 9:57 PM

Nazis were fascists, that’s definitively right wing.

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 8:42 PM

Hitler = National socialist.

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” –Adolf Hitler

(Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

Stalin = National socialist.

Trotsy = International socialist.

Stalin and Trotsky disagreed. Stalin assassinated Trotsy.

They were all socialists.

farsighted on March 30, 2015 at 9:59 PM

Trotsy Trotsky

farsighted on March 30, 2015 at 10:00 PM

That’s what happens when your party turns its back on Lincoln and embraces the KKK because they could get more votes that way. It’s all thoroughly documented.

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 9:11 PM

There’s a KKK voting bloc? And it outnumbers the African American vote? or even the Kwanzaa vote?

Show me the bloke who documented that and I’ll introduce you to an part-time college lecturer/community organizer who call himself a constitutional law professor, lol!

de rigueur on March 30, 2015 at 10:04 PM

Incorrect. Pre RFRA, several local ordinance explicitly called out gay people as a protected class. The current law overruled those protections.

Chicago Way on March 30, 2015 at 8:54 PM

If only.
Sadly, there is no state that would dare abolish the fake concept of “protected classes”. Cowardice to courts, I guess.

nobar on March 30, 2015 at 10:07 PM

farsighted on March 30, 2015 at 9:59 PM

How silly of you. Surely you know that a fact-based retort is no match for a low IQ, dim wit, and years of public education.

/

dorkintheroad on March 30, 2015 at 10:23 PM

farsighted on March 30, 2015 at 9:59 PM

Thank you.

Bmore on March 30, 2015 at 10:34 PM

Malloy is in trouble and pulling an Obama.

When something you’re doing isn’t working, stir the pot, and find some superficial issue that panders to your base and diverts attention away from the important stuff.

Works everytime. If it doesn’t work go on vacation.

Limpet6 on March 30, 2015 at 10:41 PM

Well, after getting pounded into the sand, tloc has decided to stay away from this thread.

This is one to memory link. Lot’s of stupid here to share for future tloc posts.

itsspideyman on March 30, 2015 at 10:45 PM

That’s what happens when your party turns its back on Lincoln and embraces the KKK because they could get more votes that way.

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 9:11 PM

Ugh.

So idiotic. So childish.

Its been apparent for some time now that your sole purpose is to blow up threads and just post all the crap you can.
You get smoked in debates each and every day, but you figure if you post enough of your exhaustingly stupid sh*t and disrupt the thread, then you win somehow.

But hey, I enjoy the bi*ch slapping you receive on a daily basis. And if it makes an obvious loser feel like a winner in doing what you’re doing, then troll on my man.

StubbornGreenBurros on March 30, 2015 at 10:50 PM

“I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”

– Lyndon B. Johnson

—-
Own it Tialoc.

CW on March 30, 2015 at 9:26 PM

Yep

The Republican Party was created to achieve individual freedom. Then, as now, the antagonist to the Republican party has been the Democrats, the party of collective subjugation and individual enslavement — then physical, now economic.

The first black members of the US House and Senate were Republicans. The first civil rights legislation came from Republicans. Democrats gave us the KKK, Jim Crow, lynchings, poll taxes, literacy tests, and failed policies like the “Great Society.”

As a matter of fact, it was Democrat President Lyndon Baines Johnson who stated, “I’ll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years” as he confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One regarding his underlying intentions for the “Great Society” programs.

http://clashdaily.com/2014/03/allen-west-lbj-ill-nggers-voting-democratic-next-200-years/#

redguy on March 30, 2015 at 11:57 PM

Let us know when your fight for liberty gets around to helping gays…

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 8:29 PM

They don’t need my help, dumbass. They’re already free to do whatever they want to. They’re just not free to drag others into it against their wills.

gryphon202 on March 30, 2015 at 11:58 PM

Chicago Way on March 30, 2015 at 11:46 PM

That’s what is called an opinion, and it’s based on feeling and not facts. If I hadn’t read your posts in this thread, I might say “you can do better.”

JannyMae on March 31, 2015 at 12:45 AM

You lost this fight 50 years ago. But by all means keep fighting it…

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 8:43 PM

I don’t think that argument flies at all.

Republicans fought to end slavery — a fight which had been lost in the Constitution eighty seven years earlier.

Ditto for Jim Crow — a lost fight (thanks to Democrat Andrew Johnson) for nearly a century.

So tell me about how good Wickard v. Filburn or was to personal rights, and why, fifty years onward, it’s not worth reconsidering, just as Plessy v. Ferguson was over sixty years onward.

unclesmrgol on March 31, 2015 at 12:59 AM

redguy on March 30, 2015 at 11:57 PM

LBJ also said, according to his aides, that the South was lost to the Democrats for the next 50 years.

The sentiment is the same.

That said, blacks were already overwhelmingly Democratic as a result of the Depression — where black sharecroppers, pushed off their farmlands, migrated to the cities of the North and discovered that it was better to be Democratic and hooked in to the handouts Roosevelt was giving to Democratic cities. He got 71% of the black vote in his second run for office.

Conveniently forgotten was the fact that Roosevelt completely ignored the rural South and turned a blind eye as the sharecroppers were evicted from their farms.

Truman’s integration of the armed services cemented the black vote for the Democrats.

One place where that 70% share of the vote dropped was when Eisenhower ran for the Presidency — he got 39% of the black vote. Eisenhower was viewed as a friend of the blacks, and he proved it when he deputized the Arkansas National Guard into the federal service and sent in the 101st Airborne and the Marshals to integrate Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas after Governor Faubus mobilized the State’s National Guard to prevent it.

The other was when Nixon ran against Kennedy in 1960 — he got 32% of the black vote — against a Kennedy who had voted against every civil rights law put forth while he was a Representative and a Senator. What I find shocking is that, in spite of Kennedy’s dismal civil rights record, he still got more than 60% of the black vote. That shows how difficult it may be to overcome the tendency to vote the party line.

unclesmrgol on March 31, 2015 at 1:23 AM

You know its a gay issue when you see how trivial it is. Wedding cakes? Really? We need laws about that, too?

Gay marriage? Really? You want that? (no, not really, we just want to be noticed). Duly noted, now can we deal with the nuclear nut-cases in in Tehran, please?

virgo on March 31, 2015 at 1:23 AM

Your side chose to be racists. Actively chose it. I’m not inclined to let you shirk the responsibility for that either.

Tlaloc on March 30, 2015 at 9:11 PM

Your side are the only racists in America. YOU keep the minorities where they are and pretend to “be for them”.

Thugs, always thugs.

YOU killed real racism. You watered it down by stupid comments like your.

You know it too.

Your Pimp, meanwhile.

Hypocrisy will kill you.

Schadenfreude on March 31, 2015 at 1:30 AM

You watered it down by stupid comments like your yours.

Schadenfreude on March 31, 2015 at 1:41 AM

From commenter INC:

OK, now this is unbelievable.

Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Rick Santorum, and Ben Carson have all said that they support Indiana’s RFRA.

Who’s missing? Walker, who is supposed to be a Christian, is dancing around on this. Unbelievable.

“As I understand, the law is not unlike the one that President Obama voted for when he was a member of the state senate in Illinois, but that’s an issue they’ll have to debate in Indiana. It’s really not something that we’re going to be involved with here.”

http://www.wkow.com/story/28654932/2015/03/30/gov-walker-doesnt-expect-bill-like-indianas-religious-freedom-act-to-become-law-in-wisconsin
He’s going to throw religious liberty under bus for politics? What’s he going to do if a same-sex couple in WI decides to target a Christian baker, florist, photographer, etc., with selective litigation? Sacrifice fellow believers for his presidential ambitions?

If I ever agreed with anything Erick Erickson wrote, it’s that you will be made to care.

Hey, Walker, gain the world, lose your soul.

INC on March 31, 2015 at 1:53 AM

bluegill on March 31, 2015 at 2:17 AM

With reference to the comment above:

Walker is just as disappointing on the issue of so-called “global warming.” And he gave a similar answer when asked about Arizona’s illegal alien law.

The guy is a flip-flopping, slippery squish.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: if you want someone with real conviction who will stand on principle, Scott Walker is not your guy.

bluegill on March 31, 2015 at 2:19 AM

You know its a gay issue when you see how trivial it is. Wedding cakes? Really? We need laws about that, too?

that falls under pre-existing public accommodations civil rights law that protects anyone – not just gay people – from discrimination and refusal of service.

the new laws are being made by the religious because they’re upset that they don’t live in a theocracy.

triple on March 31, 2015 at 4:19 AM

I’m getting a little sick of right-wing politicians dodging the battle. Just say we’re not going to allow Christian business owners to be sued into oblivion because they do not want to be involved in gay weddings against their conscience.

K. Hobbit on March 31, 2015 at 4:47 AM

Squish is what you get with “executive experience.” The job of an executive is to keep things quiet and everybody happy.

K. Hobbit on March 31, 2015 at 4:51 AM

Just say we’re not going to allow Christian business owners to be sued into oblivion because they do not want to be involved in gay weddings against their conscience.

I’m still amazed that people think this is somehow justifiable under Christianity. Jesus hung around with the sick, the homeless, the morally questionable, and he loved every single one of them. He didn’t turn them away at the door and use “but my religion” as a cheap excuse for bigotry.

triple on March 31, 2015 at 5:33 AM

Daniel Malloy will be on morning Joe for his boycott….praise will be thrown about on his awesome leadership

Puhleeze

cmsinaz on March 31, 2015 at 6:17 AM

Turn the tables on these dopes. Ask them why they don’t boycott Colorado who refuses to prosecute a women for murder for cutting open another women to steal her unborn child which later died?

Where is all the moral outrage over that!

ReformedDeceptiCon on March 31, 2015 at 6:56 AM

Connecticut has the same type of statute, and this guy is whinging about Indiana? What a whining little hypocrite! A perfect example of Democratic Party hypocrisy! Apparently the left wing in this country finds groupthink more important than reality.

grumpyank on March 31, 2015 at 7:29 AM

The State of Indiana is being treated unfairly. That’s obvious.

grumpyank on March 31, 2015 at 7:30 AM

the new laws are being made by the religious because they’re upset that they don’t live in a theocracy.

triple on March 31, 2015 at 4:19 AM

Yeah, that’s completely it. Way to boil it down to the gist of the situation. Can’t tell you how many times I hear Christians lamenting the fact that they don’t live in a theocracy. It’s all the talk about, good grief. /

Amazing deductive abilities you got there – were they the prize in a cereal box?

Midas on March 31, 2015 at 9:59 AM

I’m still amazed that people think this is somehow justifiable under Christianity. Jesus hung around with the sick, the homeless, the morally questionable, and he loved every single one of them. He didn’t turn them away at the door and use “but my religion” as a cheap excuse for bigotry.

triple on March 31, 2015 at 5:33 AM

He loved them, but He didn’t condone or participate in celebrating their ‘questionable’ behavior, He didn’t consider it ‘questionable’ at all, rather quite clearly pointed out that it was wrong, and He told them to stop doing it, pointing them in the right direction, 24/7.

Kinda awkward, huh?

And kudos for acknowledging that His behavior wasn’t bigotry. So… why, when today’s Christians attempt to do the same thing, they are bigots?

Just curious.

Midas on March 31, 2015 at 10:07 AM

He loved them, but He didn’t condone or participate in celebrating their ‘questionable’ behavior, He didn’t consider it ‘questionable’ at all, rather quite clearly pointed out that it was wrong, and He told them to stop doing it, pointing them in the right direction, 24/7.

Midas on March 31, 2015 at 10:07 AM

Exactly. He did not say, “neither do I condemn you, here, have a cake to celebrate your life choices”. He said, “neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.”

The Schaef on March 31, 2015 at 10:37 AM

Has anyone challenged/questioned whether you can charge gay couples at twice the rate? Would it be illegal if the owner said “I don’t believe in gay marriage but I love money so I’m going to charge you $10k for your flowers”. Would the gay couple have legal recourse?

ManWithNoName on March 31, 2015 at 10:56 AM

I’m getting a little sick of right-wing politicians dodging the battle. Just say we’re not going to allow Christian business owners to be sued into oblivion because they do not want to be involved in gay weddings against their conscience.

K. Hobbit on March 31, 2015 at 4:47 AM

Because they can’t win and they know it.

Exactly. He did not say, “neither do I condemn you, here, have a cake to celebrate your life choices”. He said, “neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.”

The Schaef on March 31, 2015 at 10:37 AM

He is not in charge.

antisense on March 31, 2015 at 12:33 PM

He is not in charge.

antisense on March 31, 2015 at 12:33 PM

I’m beginning to question whether you’re talking about the same “he” as Midas and I.

The Schaef on March 31, 2015 at 1:33 PM

Just say we’re not going to allow Christian business owners to be sued into oblivion because they do not want to be involved in gay weddings against their conscience.

I’m still amazed that people think this is somehow justifiable under Christianity. Jesus hung around with the sick, the homeless, the morally questionable, and he loved every single one of them. He didn’t turn them away at the door and use “but my religion” as a cheap excuse for bigotry.

triple on March 31, 2015 at 5:33 AM

Would that be the same Jesus who said, “Except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish?” And, “whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” And, “except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.” And, “The men of Nineve shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.”

Jesus was a preacher of righteousness. The reason Jesus “hung around” the morally questionable was to tell them they needed to repent. Those who repented were forgiven, and told to sin no more. but sin was never just excused.

Like most liberals, you have re-created Jesus in your own secular image. That’s not Who He was.

Or Who He is.

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 1, 2015 at 12:24 AM

Shouldn’t Governor Clown-boy be busy analyzing the high capacity magazine registry looking to prevent the next episode of gun violence?

Why is he wasting time and endangering public safety by worrying about a bunch of offended gay bastards?

JackM on April 1, 2015 at 4:27 PM